Easy gun access tops factors examined in mass violence studies

MANILA, Philippines — As authorities investigate the circumstances surrounding the latest deadly school shooting in Zamboanga City, a preliminary analysis of more than 5,000 academic papers offers a broader look at the factors researchers have examined in trying to understand mass violence.

The analysis by University of the Philippines Diliman associate professor and Inquirer data scientist Dr. Rogelio Alicor Panao found that easy access to firearms and gaps in gun regulation were the most frequently discussed factors in the academic literature, accounting for 26.81% of the statements identified in the study.

The analysis examined 5,222 academic papers indexed in Scopus and used natural language processing to identify statements in their abstracts and keywords that explicitly discussed factors contributing to mass violence.

Researchers identified 1,323 statements that referred to possible contributing factors.

However, Panao stressed that the findings should not be read as proof that any particular factor causes a shooting.

“We note that this analysis is a preliminary text-based mapping exercise, not an inferential study. It does not establish statistical significance, effect size or the relative importance of any factor,” he said.

Access to guns most discussed

Among the factors identified in the academic papers, easy access to guns and regulatory gaps accounted for 26.81% of the statements, making it the most frequently discussed factor in the literature reviewed.

Panao said the studies assessed whether existing safeguards were sufficient to prevent potentially dangerous individuals from gaining access to firearms and ammunition.

“These studies look into how easily a person considered at risk might obtain firearms and ammunition despite existing safeguards,” he said.

Panao noted that the finding means firearm access and regulatory gaps were among the issues most frequently discussed in the body of research examined. It does not, however, establish that these factors caused any particular shooting or determine their relative importance in producing mass violence.

Panao emphasized that the percentages in the analysis reflect the focus of the research literature rather than the proven causes of mass shootings.

“The percentages show only what researchers have discussed and how frequently those factors appeared in the analysis, not what has been proven to cause mass shootings,” he said.

The Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP), in its discussion of school violence following the deadly Tacloban City shooting, likewise included easy access to lethal weapons among a range of risk factors identified by psychological science.

But the association cautioned against treating any one risk factor as a direct explanation for violence.

“School violence is a complex issue that cannot be explained by any single factor,” PAP said.

The group said serious acts of violence among children and adolescents emerge through interactions among developmental, relational, social, community, digital, cultural and societal influences.

READ: Group: Preventing school violence begins long before attacks happen

Mental health is one factor, not an explanation

Unaddressed mental health crises accounted for 21.25% of the statements identified in the data analysis, making it the second most frequently discussed factor.

Panao said studies under this category referred to “severe emotional distress, depression or suicidal thoughts.”

The figure should not be interpreted as meaning that people experiencing mental health problems are likely to commit mass violence. It also does not establish that mental health conditions cause mass shootings or that a person involved in a particular shooting had a mental health condition.

The analysis measures how frequently researchers discussed unaddressed mental health crises in the literature reviewed. It does not diagnose perpetrators, examine individual clinical records or establish a causal relationship.

Psychologists have similarly warned against drawing a direct line between mental health problems and violence.

Graphics by Ed Lustan/Inquirer.net

In its earlier statement on school violence, PAP said serious violence among young people develops through the interaction of multiple circumstances rather than from a single influence such as violent video games, social media, mental illness, bullying or family problems alone.

The association identified emotional distress and difficulty regulating emotions among possible risk factors, along with trauma and adverse childhood experiences, bullying, victimization, family conflict, social isolation and peer rejection, exposure to violence, unsafe or exclusionary school environments, access to lethal weapons, and harmful online and offline influences.

READ: School violence stems from multiple risks, not a single cause — psychologists

But PAP emphasized that the presence of one or even several of these factors does not mean a young person will become violent.

“Most young people exposed to adversity do not commit serious acts of violence,” the organization said.

PAP said risk develops over time through the interaction of multiple circumstances, while protective factors such as supportive families, trusted adults, positive school environments, healthy peer relationships and accessible mental health services can reduce the likelihood of violent behavior.

The association has also called for comprehensive school mental health systems covering prevention, early identification, counseling, intervention and referral to specialized services.

It urged schools to provide safe and inclusive environments through anti-bullying programs, social-emotional learning, conflict resolution and mental health literacy.

Childhood trauma and early abuse

The third most frequently discussed factor in Panao’s analysis was childhood trauma and early abuse, which accounted for 16.24% of the statements identified.

Panao said this category included exposure to domestic violence, neglect and abuse.

The finding does not establish that childhood trauma or abuse causes mass shootings. It indicates that these experiences were among the factors researchers discussed when examining mass violence.

PAP previously noted that risk factors do not operate in isolation and that their effects may interact and accumulate across a young person’s development.

“Their effects may interact and accumulate across development, with risk shaped by the timing, duration, intensity, and combination of experiences,” PAP said.

The association also said the presence or absence of protective relationships and resources can shape how risk develops over time.

Other factors in the research

Beyond firearms access, mental health crises and childhood trauma, Panao’s analysis identified several other themes in the academic literature.

Media attention and copycat behavior accounted for 7.45% of the statements.

Bullying, rejection and loneliness accounted for 5.78%, while gaps in school safety and security accounted for 5.67%.

The remaining factors were:

• Unstable or violent home lives: 4.34%
• Poverty and community disadvantage: 3.78%
• Radical beliefs and hate: 3.45%
• Personal grievance and power seeking: 2.56%
• Gender dynamics and toxic masculinity: 2%
• Substance abuse or intoxication: 0.67%

The range of categories reflects the different levels at which researchers have examined mass violence, from individual circumstances to family relationships, schools, communities and wider social conditions.

Panao said the literature takes a broader approach, considering not only perpetrators but also the wider conditions that may contribute to mass shootings.

“Taken together, the map shows that researchers do not examine mass shootings solely through the individual perpetrator,” he said. “They also look at the social environment, institutions and circumstances surrounding a potential attack, including access to lethal weapons.”

From research map to local assessment

Panao stressed that the analysis should be viewed as a starting point for further examination rather than a definitive explanation of what drives mass shootings.

“Again, the analysis offers a map, not an answer,” he said. “It shows where international research has looked for explanations, but not which factors matter most in the Philippine context.”

“It is now up to policymakers to use that map to systematically assess local risks, identify gaps in prevention and response, and direct resources toward interventions supported by evidence,” he added. /dm